Skip to main content

Freakonomics – Steven D. Levitt & Stephen L. Dubner *****

It has to be said that this book is little short of brilliant. Levitt, with the assistance of writer Dubner, turns a series of interesting statistics into a real page turner. (Which is why it’s here, despite being sometimes classified as a kind of business book.) 

The way they do it is partly by taking statistics we’re really interested in – crime, education, all the things that push the button – and partially by be rigorous about the statistics, rather than the typical sloppy interpretative stuff we see every day on the TV news or coming from “experts” who might know their field but no nothing about statistics.

A great (and inevitably controversial) example is the big reduction in crime in the US from around 1990. Levitt shows how the usual suspects from increased police numbers to gun control may have had effects, but could not be responsible for this fall. Instead, he suggests and very convincingly demonstrates, it is due to the reduction in birth rate amongst poor and disadvantaged families a generation earlier due to a change in the law. It was the reduction in the likely potential criminal pool that had the biggest impact. It’s fascinating (and not all on such heavy subjects either). Everything from teachers cheating their children’s test results to real estate agents’ tricks come under the Levitt scrutiny. 

Just a couple of small negative points. One is the use of the words “economics” and “economist” throughout the book. Levitt is an economist, but very little of what’s in the book is economics. It’s mostly statistics with a healthy chunk of operational research (that’s operations research in the US) thrown in. Just because economists use statistics (and probably get paid more than statisticians) doesn’t magically turn statistics into economics. It’s just plain wrong.

The other small problem is over an example of Levitt doing what he accuses “experts” of doing – stating something with confidence, but without the evidence to back it up. He tells us we’re fooling ourselves in being more afraid of flying than driving, because the “per hour” death rate of driving versus flying is equal. I’ve two problems with this. One is I think people are more interested in the per trip death rate than the per hour rate (i.e. “will I survive this journey?”) As car journeys are usually shorter in duration than plane journeys, his like-for-like comparison falls down. I did this calculation for my own book, The Complete Flyer’s Handbook and (based on UK rather US data) you were ten times more likely to be in a fatal air crash on any particular journey than you were of being in a fatal road crash (though it was a one in a million chance on the air crash, so not very likely).

Oh and I found the pages quoting newspapers on how wonderful Levitt it is that interleave each chapter rather irritating.

But none of these little negative should put you off from what is justifiably already a classic and a worthy bestseller. It’s entertaining, it’s informing, it makes you think and it will inspire you to consider what properly used statistics can do for your enterprise. Great stuff.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more